Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

[BlueToff]

I'm open minded on it mate, i think if you are going to implement measures it should be an approach of the least regressive backwards, assess the impact and go from there. Like many i see measures as enabling to keep society open and functioning.

I expect Xmas to a be a mess, i think governments should have a plan in place or ready to go now, just before and after to manage, rather then scramble in the early new year.

Measures enabling to keep society open - in my mind - mean not forcing any business to shut, just because some stiff in a suit believes they’re not ‘essential’.

Anything less than that - testing, mask wearing, vaccine passes (to an extent), then at least those are measures towards actually allowing things to stay open while we deal with this illness

 

[LinekersLegs]

Mask-wearing linked to 53% cut in Covid incidence, global study finds

Researchers said results highlight the need to continue with face coverings, social distancing and handwashing alongside vaccine programmes

www.theguardian.com

Researchers at Monash University and the University of Edinburgh say multi-faceted measures, such as lockdowns and closures of borders, schools and workplaces need further analysis to assess their potential negative effects on populations.

Public health or non-pharmaceutical interventions are known to be beneficial in fighting respiratory infections like flu, and countries around the world have tried using them to curb the spread of Covid.

However, until now, reviews have not been robust enough to allow experts to make firm conclusions about the effectiveness of such measures in tackling Covid.

Results from more than 30 studies from around the world were analysed in detail, showing a statistically significant 53% reduction in the incidence of Covid with mask wearing and a 25% reduction with physical distancing.

A follow up

 

[RAFUH]

 

[LinekersLegs]

 

[LinekersLegs]

Rollout of third Covid jabs in England condemned as ‘shambolic’

Charity says unknown number of immunocompromised people have been left without proper protection

www.theguardian.com

A “shambolic” rollout of third Covid vaccinations has left an unknown number of immunocompromised people still without proper protection going into winter, and in other cases even given the wrong type of injection, a leading charity has said.

Blood Cancer UK said poor planning and confusing messaging meant “many thousands” of people with weakened immune systems might have missed out, leaving them at greater risk of serious consequences if they catch Covid.
In a lengthy statement, the charity said NHS England had repeatedly failed to acknowledge the problem, while Sajid Javid, the health secretary, incorrectly said more than six weeks ago that the “vast, vast majority” of eligible people had already been invited for a third jab.

 

[Billy Dean]

I have no issue with measures like masks etc being in place.
Shutting things down or not allowing certain people to do things isn’t the answer and that should be the line.

UK/most of northern Europe are in ‘winter conditions’ for half of the year anyway.

This is what annoys me. Businesses, workplaces and governments have had almost 2 years to find solutions without shutting things down and they've done nothing. Should be easy for gyms, restaurants, workplaces to install air filters for example, but not many have bothered.

 

[Martin Alvito]

That makes zero sense. I can't even begin to conjecture an explanation for the observation. The best I can do is suppose that the elderly are taking much better preventive measures than younger people as vaccine efficacy wanes.

 

[Tubey]

That makes zero sense. I can't even begin to conjecture an explanation for the observation. The best I can do is suppose that the elderly are taking much better preventive measures than younger people as vaccine efficacy wanes.

Boosters.

 

[Martin Alvito]

Boosters.

Either that would be controlled for, or this study is considering only those that have not had a booster. If both of those things are not true, then we're talking governmental incompetence of the highest order in preparing the graph.

 

[Tubey]

Either that would be controlled for, or this study is considering only those that have not had a booster. If both of those things are not true, then we're talking governmental incompetence of the highest order in preparing the graph.

Don't know what you mean. It's a vaccinate case effectiveness graph, so it's taking all those vaccinated in cohorts, regardless of how many shots, and charting the effectiveness in those cohorts.

Clearly the booster is having an incredible impact in the oldest cohorts who have received the booster versus those who have yet to have them. But even then, there's quite a number from younger cohorts (disabled, vulnerable, carers) who have had the booster and that'll be the reason it's starting to level off.

Or the TLDR version - the results of that graph are pretty much exactly what you'd expect from a third dose regimen of vaccination.

 

[Martin Alvito]

Don't know what you mean. It's a vaccinate case effectiveness graph, so it's taking all those vaccinated in cohorts, regardless of how many shots, and charting the effectiveness in those cohorts.

Clearly the booster is having an incredible impact in the oldest cohorts who have received the booster versus those who have yet to have them. But even then, there's quite a number from younger cohorts (disabled, vulnerable, carers) who have had the booster and that'll be the reason it's starting to level off.

Or the TLDR version - the results of that graph are pretty much exactly what you'd expect from a third dose regimen of vaccination.

For one thing, we don't have data on 42-45 weeks of boosters. For another, if we're measuring waning efficacy, not controlling for boosters is the sort of thing that would get you laughed out of the room in a presentation.

I'm don't think you understand the dependent variable (in other words, what is being measured).

 

[RAFUH]

For one thing, we don't have data on 42-45 weeks of boosters. For another, if we're measuring waning efficacy, not controlling for boosters is the sort of thing that would get you laughed out of the room in a presentation.

I'm don't think you understand the dependent variable (in other words, what is being measured).

You need to look at that tweet thread.

Boosters are given 6 months after 2nd dose. (longer than that for many folks because of when boosters were approved, getting it rolled out, etc...) The graph's time line is from first dose. So where you see the graph sharply rise is post booster.

 

[Martin Alvito]

You need to look at that tweet thread.

Boosters are given 6 months after 2nd dose. (longer than that for many folks because of when boosters were approved, getting it rolled out, etc...) The graph's time line is from first dose. So where you see the graph sharply rise, is post booster.

Two things, then:

1) Worst title ever on the graph in question, out of context. That looks like it's presenting an age-based difference in immune response.
2) Is the UK far more restrictive on access to boosters than we are? The results for 18-39 still don't make sense unless that population is hardly eligible, relative to the 40-59 age range in particular. Ditto for the 60-69 age range versus 70+, unless they're restricting booster access to 70+. We should see a meaningful effect in that population if they're available at age 65.

In any event, @Tubey has my apology.

 

[Tubey]

Two things, then:

1) Worst title ever on the graph in question, out of context. That looks like it's presenting an age-based difference in immune response.
2) Is the UK far more restrictive on access to boosters than we are? The results for 18-39 still don't make sense unless that population is hardly eligible, relative to the 40-59 age range in particular. Ditto for the 60-69 age range versus 70+, unless they're restricting booster access to 70+.

In any event, @Tubey has my apology.

Nothing to apologise for mate. Discussion forum, we discussed something in it, all good!

 

[RAFUH]

Two things, then:

1) Worst title ever on the graph in question, out of context. That looks like it's presenting an age-based difference in immune response.
2) Is the UK far more restrictive on access to boosters than we are? The results for 18-39 still don't make sense unless that population is hardly eligible, relative to the 40-59 age range in particular. Ditto for the 60-69 age range versus 70+, unless they're restricting booster access to 70+. We should see a meaningful effect in that population if they're available at age 65.

In any event, @Tubey has my apology.

Not sure how restrictive they were for boosters, but like every other country, they were restrictive for the initial doses when vaccine supply was limited early on. That means fewer people in the younger age groups would have been 6 months out from their 2nd dose (and thus eligible) when boosters first became available.